Allahabad HC Grants Anticipatory Bail in a Case of Abduction and Rape

Must Read

Himachal Pradesh High Court Supports Promotion Based on Seniority of Post Rather Based on the Eligibility Test

In the case of Ramesh Chand Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Others, the petitioner, reached the court as...

NCDRC Dismisses PIL against Urologist, Holy Family Hospital, Says Mode Of Treatment Or Skill Differs From Doctor To Doctor

The National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (NCDRC) dismissed a petition against Holy Family Hospital and a Urologist, alleging negligence...

Himachal Pradesh High Court Disposes Suit for Possession and Permanent Prohibitory Injunction Due To Mutual Consent

In the case of Parveen Kumar vs Smt. Vijay Laxmi and Ors, the Petitioner, Parveen had filed a suit for declaration,...

Supreme Court Appoints Committee To Examine Arbitrariness of Sealing of Resorts in Elephant Corridor, Tamil Nadu

A Full Bench headed by the Chief Justice of India, in the matter of Hospitality Association of Mudumalai V. In...

Madhya Pradesh High Court Rules That Export Ban on N95 Masks & PPE Kits Does Not Violate Fundamental Right of Traders

The Madhya Pradesh High Court held that the formulation and regulation of trade policies were within the subjects of...

Delhi High Court Issues Notice To Two Pleas Filed Praying for Recognition of Same-Sex Marriage

The Court heard two writ petitions which urged that the Special Marriage Act and the Foreign Marriage Act be...

Follow us

On 18th August 2020, the High Court of Allahabad had granted anticipatory bail to Pratap (Accused Applicant) who was arrested on charges of Abduction and Rape, among other charges. The case concerns Pratap vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others, with the bench consisting of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh.

Facts of the Case 

The Prosecutrix (victim) visited her parents’ home. Mukesh, the Co-Accused was her neighbour. On 6th September 2019 at 1:30 pm the victim had gone out to buy some articles along with Daichi, the wife of Mukesh. During this outing, Mukesh abducted the Prosecutrix and administered her with stupefying drugs. These drugs rendered her unconscious. After that, the Accused took her to a house near the Railway line. She was kept there for a few days. Mukesh and one other person, namely, Jija Pratap (Accused) had raped her. The Prosecutrix submitted that Daichi had beaten and threatened her.

Soon after,  the victim got hold of a telephone from a child. The child had disclosed the name of the village where she had been brought. The victim then telephoned her mother. Nevertheless, she was soon shifted to the marital home of Daichi where Mukesh’s brother, Babban,  had forcibly raped her when she refused to marry him.

Meanwhile, the Police had come in search of the Prosecutrix. On 23rd September 2019 at around 1 pm, the victim was again drugged by Pratap. She was taken to Farrukhabad by Mukesh and Pratap. After that, somebody had telephoned her brother. Following this, she was then was taken home. 

After her return, her family filed an FIR. The charges filed against the Accused were under Sections 328, 342, 323, 504, 506, 376D, 120B of the IPC. The complaint was lodged at the Police Station at Sihani Gate, in Ghaziabad. During the pendency of the investigation, the accused, Pratap, filed for anticipatory bail.

Submissions filed before the Court 

The Counsel for the Applicant argued that the victim has falsely implicated the Accused Applicant. The Counsel stated that this was due to the existence of some dispute with Mukesh, her neighbour. The Counsel argued that she refused to get herself medically examined. This fact is evident, from the evidence adduced.

Additionally, the Counsel submitted that Pratap has no criminal history. The Counsel argued that Pratap was falsely implicated due to an existing monetary dispute between the Prosecutrix and Mukesh. This dispute was allegedly about the supply of milk.

The Counsel further stated that the family members of the Prosecutrix had earlier filed an FIR bearing No. 1634 of 2010 under Section 354 IPC, PS of Sihani Gate, District Ghaziabad. The family later compromised on the FIR, after receiving money. 

The family of the victim lodged the FIR after a delay of about five months. The occurrence is stated to have taken place on 6th September 2019. However, the FIR had been filed on 3rd February 2020. Thus, the Counsel argued that Pratap has an apprehension of imminent arrest. If the Accused were to be released on bail, he would not misuse the liberty and would co-operate with the investigation.

Further, the Applicant’s Counsel argued that the Prosecutrix’s statements are inconsistent, with regards to the place of occurrence of the rape. The FIR states that Mukesh and Babban had committed rape upon her in the village, Alam. However, in her statement under the same section, she has said that all the three accused, i.e. Mukesh, Pratap and Babban, had committed rape upon her in Purthi village. Therefore, there is variation in the place of occurrence also in statements by the Prosecutrix.

However, the AGA for the State had vehemently opposed the prayer for granting bail for Pratap. Under Section 164 of the CrPC, the Prosecutrix has supported the prosecution version.

Observations of the Court 

Considering the facts of the case, the Bench noted that there was no possibility of the accused fleeing from justice. The Court further stated that the Applicant was entitled to be released on anticipatory bail. The Court instructed him to furnish a personal bond of ₹50,000 before the competent court, with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer.  

The Court set the following conditions for the Accused’s bail: First, the Applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required. Second, the Applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case. Third, the Applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court.

The Court directed the Investigating Officer to conclude the investigation expeditiously within three months.


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgments from courts. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Himachal Pradesh High Court Supports Promotion Based on Seniority of Post Rather Based on the Eligibility Test

In the case of Ramesh Chand Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Others, the petitioner, reached the court as he was aggrieved by the...

NCDRC Dismisses PIL against Urologist, Holy Family Hospital, Says Mode Of Treatment Or Skill Differs From Doctor To Doctor

The National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (NCDRC) dismissed a petition against Holy Family Hospital and a Urologist, alleging negligence in diagnosing the septicemia and...

Himachal Pradesh High Court Disposes Suit for Possession and Permanent Prohibitory Injunction Due To Mutual Consent

In the case of Parveen Kumar vs Smt. Vijay Laxmi and Ors, the Petitioner, Parveen had filed a suit for declaration, possession and a permanent prohibitory...

Supreme Court Appoints Committee To Examine Arbitrariness of Sealing of Resorts in Elephant Corridor, Tamil Nadu

A Full Bench headed by the Chief Justice of India, in the matter of Hospitality Association of Mudumalai V. In Defence of Environment and Animals...

Madhya Pradesh High Court Rules That Export Ban on N95 Masks & PPE Kits Does Not Violate Fundamental Right of Traders

The Madhya Pradesh High Court held that the formulation and regulation of trade policies were within the subjects of the Central Government. Any reasonable...

Delhi High Court Issues Notice To Two Pleas Filed Praying for Recognition of Same-Sex Marriage

The Court heard two writ petitions which urged that the Special Marriage Act and the Foreign Marriage Act be interpreted to also apply to...

Supreme Court Allows Appeal Challenging Allahabad High Court Order Granting Interim Bail on Medical Grounds

An appeal was filed before the Supreme Court, challenging the Judgment & Order of the Allahabad High Court in the matter of State of U.P...

Bombay High Court Allows Petition Seeking Lawyers and Legal Clerks To Travel in Local Trains

The present hearing arose out of a batch of Public Interest Litigations that was filed in the Bombay High Court to permit the members...

Provisions for Retirement of Teachers Must Be Read With the Larger Interest of Students in Mind: Supreme Court

Supreme Court in Navin Chandra Dhoundiyal v State of Uttarakhand reinstated the appellants to their position as Professor on basis of re-employment till the...

Parties Cannot Deny Specific Performance Merely Due To Delay: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court, in Ferrodous Estate v P Gopirathnam, revisited the law on the specific performance of a contract. It reiterated that mere delay...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -